spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: implementation question

2004-01-15 13:02:46
On Thursday 15 January 2004 6:45 pm, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Why reward nebulous answers at all?   Going to the effort of saying 
'maybe' seems to warrant an SA score of 0 to me.

Yep. Anything else is asking for trouble:

Negative: SPF adopters become targets for joe-jobs
Zero: SPF adopters have nothing to fear
Positive: SPF adopters become persecuted by antispam bots

Personally I think it would be unfortunate if Mail::SPF::Query offered the 
ability to differentiate between "unknown" and "no spf record" right out of 
the box. 

People will tend to fiddle with settings and put in different treatments 
simply because they can. ie: it will only encourage people to harm SPF 
adopters out of ignorance.

It would be better for SPF in the long run if Mail::SPF::Query and all other 
implementations restricted this ability only to people who can be bothered to 
hack the code, ie: very few.

Perhaps this should be in the spec as a requirement for 'SPF-compatible' MTAs?

- Dan

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>